Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 8285U / 2026M/S Kanoria Energy … vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ccit) … on 4 May, 2026
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4556/2026
M/s Kanoria Energy And Infrastructure Limited, (Formerly Known As
M/s A Infrastructure Limited) A Company Incorporated Under The
Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At 1, Hamirgarh,
Bhilwra, Rajasthan - 311001 Through Its Authorised Signatory
Kamlesh Kumar Somani S/o Prahlad Raj Somani, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Gyanji Ka Chowk, Ward No. 18, Gangapur, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan - 311801.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ccit), 4Th Floor, Aaykar
Bhawan, Subcity Centre, Udaipur -313001.
2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Through Its Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
Mr. Priyansh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order(Oral)
Reportable
04/05/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 22.12.2025 vide which
his application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for
AY 2020-21, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was
rejected.
2. Succinctly speaking brief facts of the case are the petitioner is a
domestic company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956/2013,
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (2 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement pressure pipes and
asbestos cement corrugated roofing sheets. It was earlier known as M/s
A Infrastructure Limited and is presently known as M/s Kanoria Energy
& Infrastructure Limited. The petitioner is regularly assessed under the
Income Tax Act, 1961 and has been duly filing its returns of income. For
the Assessment Year 2020-21, the petitioner filed its return of income
in Form ITR-6 on 09.01.2021 within the extended due date, declaring
total income of ₹5,21,66,960/- and opted for taxation under Section
115BAA of the Act at the concessional rate of 22%.
2.1 The Centralised Processing Centre, while processing the return
under Section 143(1), recomputed the income and applied the normal
rate of tax instead of the concessional rate under Section 115BAA,
resulting in a demand. The petitioner challenged the intimation before
the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which accepted that the petitioner
had exercised the option under Section 115BAA and directed the
Assessing Officer to apply the concessional rate. However, in further
appellate proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the
matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of
legal issues without disturbing the finding regarding the petitioner’s
option under Section 115BAA.
2.2 During the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer raised an
objection regarding non-filing of Form No. 10-IC. The petitioner, under
the belief that exercise of option in the return was sufficient compliance
and in view of the appellate findings, filed Form No. 10-IC on
30.01.2023 along with explanations stating that the lapse was
procedural and bona fide. The Assessing Officer, however, did not
consider the said Form and denied the benefit of Section 115BAA,
leading to a consequential demand raised under Section 156.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (3 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
2.3 Subsequently, the petitioner sought condonation of delay under
Section 119(2)(b) in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2024. The application
was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated
22.12.2025 on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period and
absence of sufficient justification.
2.4. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 22.12.2025 under Section 119(2)(b) is vitiated by non-application
of mind, as it fails to consider material facts on record, including the
filing of Form No. 10-IC on 30.01.2023 during remand proceedings. The
omission to even refer to such filing renders the decision arbitrary. It is
further contended that the order disregards binding appellate findings
wherein the applicability of Section 115BAA had already been accepted
and attained finality, and could not have been reopened.
3.1. It is submitted that the authority proceeds on an erroneous
assumption that the petitioner never exercised the option under Section
115BAA, despite the petitioner having declared income at the
concessional rate and fulfilled all substantive conditions. Filing of Form
No. 10-IC, at best, is procedural, and its submission during the
pendency of proceedings constitutes sufficient compliance. In the
absence of any statutory consequence for delayed filing, denial of the
benefit is impermissible.
3.2. Learned counsel contends that Section 119(2)(b) is a beneficial
provision requiring liberal construction, but has been applied rigidly by
misreading CBDT Circular No. 17/2024 as a limitation bar. The
petitioner acted bona fide and filed the form promptly upon objection.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in A.C.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (4 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
Surgipharma Private Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax1, in support of his argument.
3.3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, aside
all above, as far as the limitation/time period is concerned, it is
admitted position of the department that the petitioner had though
furnished the information within the prescribed limits, but the same was
submitted at the local jurisdictional office, i.e., the Income Tax Office,
Ward 1, Bhilwara, as advised, instead of being furnished at the head
office to the Chief Commissioner, Udaipur. The application for
condonation was filed as an abundant caution and same has been
completely misconstrued by the department while rejecting it vide
impugned order, is the argument in the alterative.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner failed to exercise the option under Section 115BAA of the Act
in the prescribed manner. As per Rule 21AE, the option is required to be
exercised by filing Form No. 10-IC on or before the due date specified
under Section 139(1) of the Act. It is contended that Section 115BAA(5)
clearly mandates that the benefit of the concessional tax regime shall
not apply unless such option is exercised within the prescribed time and
in the prescribed form.
4.1. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner
admittedly filed Form No. 10-IC on 30.01.2023, i.e., beyond the due
date stipulated under the Act. Since the requirement of timely filing of
the prescribed form is mandatory and not merely procedural, the
petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 115BAA for the
relevant assessment year, and the action of the department in applying
the normal rate of tax is fully justified in law.
1. W.P (C)17057/2022.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (5 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
5. Heard learned counsels for the both the parties and perused the
material available on the record.
6. Before proceeding further, we would like to quote relevant portion
of the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, which is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“B. The provisions w.r.t the impugned matter:-
(i) The CBDT, issued Circular No. 17/2024 Dated 18th November 2024 in
F. No. 173/32/2022-ITA-I on the Subject “Condonation of delay under
section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 10-IC
or Form No. 10-ID for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.”
(ii) The relevant Para of the said Circular is reproduced as below:
“4. The Pro CCsITI CCsITI DSGITI Pro CsITI CsIT while
deciding such applications for condonation of delay in furnishing
of Form No. IO-IC or Form No. IO-ID to exercise the option,
under section 115BAA of the Act read with Rule 21AE of the Rules
or under section 115BAB of the Act read with Rule 21AF of the
Rules, shall satisfy themselves that the applicant’s case is a fit case
for condonation under the existing provisions of the Act. The Pro
CCSITI CCSITI DSGITI Pro CsITI CSIT shall ensure that the
following conditions are satisfied, while deciding such
applications:-
(i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has
been filed on or before the due date specified under section
139(1) of the Act;
(ii) The assessee has opted for taxation, u/s 115BAA of the
Act in case condonation of delay is for Form No. IO-IC and
u/s I 15BAB of the Act in case condonation of delay is for
Form No. IO-ID, in “Filing Status” in “Part A-GEN” of the
Form of Return of Income ITR-6; and
(iii) The assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from
filing such Form before the expiry of the time allowed and
the case is of genuine hardship on merits.
5. No application for condonation of delay in filing of Form No.
10-IC or Form No. IO-ID shall be entertained beyond three years
from the end of the assessment year for which such application is
made. The time limit for filing of such application within three
years from the end of the assessment year will be applicable for
application filed on or after the date of issue of this Circular. A
condonation application should be disposed of, as far as possible,
within six months from the end of the month in which such
application is received by the Competent Authority.”
2. Therefore, considering the impugned application, the reply(ies) filed by
the assessee in compliance to the Notice(s)/Letter(s) so issued in the
matter, the report of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, that of the Range
Head and the Pr. CIT, the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
material available on record vis-à-vis the provisions contained in Circular
No. 17/2024, as categorically mentioned above, it may be unambiguously
said that the assessee was required to submit application for Condonation
of delay in filing Form No. 10IC for A.Y. 2020-21 on or before
31.03.2024, whereas, the assessee has filed application on 28/12/2024
(received in the Office of the undersigned on 03/01/2025) i.e. after the
prescribed time period as allowed under the said Circular No. 17/2024
dated 18.11.2024. Therefore, the case of the assessee is found not fit for
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (6 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10IC for the AX 2020-21 on the
issue of maintainability. Hence, deserves rejection.”
7. Having seen the impugned order, in order to determine its
legality, at the very outset, let us first see the chronology of dates and
events which we have culled out from the factual part of impugned
order itself in a tabular form as below:-
Date Event
09.01.2021 Assessee filed ITR for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of
Rs. 5,21,66,960/-, claiming taxation under Section
115BAA @ 22%, but without filing Form 10-IC.
18.12.2021 ITR processed u/s 143(1) by CPC; total income determined
at Rs. 5,70,11,740/-; tax charged at normal rate instead
of special rate u/s 115BAA.
18.10.2022 CIT(A) dismissed both original grounds of appeal but
admitted additional legal ground regarding wrong
computation of tax; directed AO to compute tax at
applicable rates.
27.01.2023 AO issued notice/letter to assessee providing opportunity
of hearing while giving appeal effect to CIT(A) order.
30.01.2023 Assessee replied submitting that Form 10-IC could not be
filed by oversight and requested its acceptance.
Post AO passed Appeal Effect Order u/s 250; rejected
30.01.2023 assessee’s reply holding that Form 10-IC was not filed on
or before the due date as mandated u/s 115BAA(5), and
accordingly upheld taxation at general rate.
31.03.2024 Last date for filing condonation application for AY 2020-21
as per Circular No. 17/2024 (three years from end of AY
2020-21 i.e. end of 31.03.2021).
18.11.2024 CBDT issued Circular No. 17/2024 prescribing conditions
and time limits for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-
IC / Form 10-ID for AYs 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.
28.12.2024 Assessee filed application for condonation of delay u/s
119(2)(b) in filing Form 10-IC for AY 2020-21, invoking
Circular No. 17/2024.
03.01.2025 Condonation application received in the office of the
competent authority.
Disposal Application rejected as not maintainable — having been
filed after the prescribed limit of 31.03.2024 stipulated
under Circular No. 17/2024, the case was held not fit for
condonation.
8. In light of the above chronology, original CBDT Circular No.19/2023
dated 23.10.2023 (later clarified/superceded on 18.11.2024, as also
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (7 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
reproduced in the impugned order) be now seen. Paragraph 3 thereof
being apposite is extracted here in below:-
“3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid genuine hardship
to the domestic companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act,
CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the
Act, hereby directs that: –
The delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for
previous year relevant to A.Y. 2021-22 is condoned in cases where the
following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on
or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act;
(ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the
Act in item (e) of “Filing Status” in “Part A-GEN” of the Form of
Return of Income ITR-6;
and
(iii) Form No. 10-IC is filed electronically on or before 31.01.2024 or
3 months from the end of the month in which this Circular is issued,
whichever is later.”
9. A bare perusal of the circular, ibid, reveals that the significance of
CBDT Circular No. 19/2023 dated 23.10.2023 in the context of the
above chronology is important. Circular was issued on 23.10.2023 and
it envisaged condonation of the delay in filing Form 10-IC for AY 2021-
22 subject to three conditions i.e. (i) timely filing of return; (ii) option
exercised in ITR-6, and (iii) Form 10-IC filed electronically on or before
31.01.2024 or three months from the end of the month of issue of the
Circular, whichever is later.
10. The assessee petitioner had substantively and unambiguously
exercised the option under Section 115BAA at the very threshold, by
indicating the same in “Filing Status” in “Part A-GEN” of ITR-6 filed on
09.01.2021, which is on or before the due date u/s 139(1). The only
lapse was the non-filing of Form 10-IC, which, in this case appears to
be a procedural/mechanical requirement under Rule 21AE, not a
substantive condition going to the root of the option itself. Concededly,
Form 10-IC was later Filed on 30.01.2023 i.e. within permissible period
as per Circular No. 17/2024.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (8 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
11. Now, examining later Circular No. 17/2024 dated 18.11.2024, the
three conditions prescribed thereunder position of the
petitioner/assesses are tabulated as under:
Condition Assessee’s Position
Return filed on or before due Satisfied — ITR filed on 09.01.2021
date u/s 139(1)
Option for 115BAA exercised in Satisfied — option was exercised at the
Filing Status in Part A-GEN of time of filing ITR
ITR-6
Assessee prevented by Satisfied — oversight/mistake,
reasonable cause from filing acknowledged before AO on
Form 10-IC 30.01.2023
12. To be noted, and which is a crucial fact, Form 10-IC was actually
filed on 30.01.2023, which is well within three years from the end of AY
2020-21, the cut-off being 31.03.2024. Therefore, even applying the
time limit under Circular No. 17/2024 strictly, the assessee’s Form 10-
IC stands filed within the prescribed period.
13. The impugned rejection order proceeds on the premise that the
condonation application was filed on 28.12.2024, which is beyond
31.03.2024. However, this reasoning conflates two distinct acts i.e.
a). The submission of Form 10-IC itself — which occurred on
30.01.2023, well within time;
and
b). The submission of the formal condonation application — which was
filed on 28.12.2024.
Circular No. 17/2024 read with Circular No. 19/2023 contemplates
condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-IC, not delay in filing the
condonation application as a standalone procedural exercise divorced
from the underlying act. Since the Form itself was filed on 30.01.2023
and was duly placed before and considered by the AO while passing the
Appeal Effect Order, the substantive requirement stood fulfilled long
before the cut-off of 31.03.2024.
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (9 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
14. Though counsel for the petitioner has argued that the settled
principle of law is that a procedural or directory requirement cannot be
elevated to defeat substantive compliance that is otherwise beyond
doubt, but be that as it may, arguendo, assuming that the requirement
is/was mandatory, even then it is borne out that compliance thereof
was duly carried out within the prescribed time limits as envisaged in
the CBDT Circulars, ibid. Where the intent and substance of an option or
claim is clearly established from the return itself, a mere procedural
omission, as is the case in hand, same ought not to be visited with
penal consequences of denial of the beneficial provision.
15. There is another aspect of the matter, which is, the assessee
acknowledged the omission at the earliest opportunity, in its reply dated
30.01.2023 before the AO during Appeal Effect proceedings, and
simultaneously filed Form 10-IC. This demonstrates both bona fides and
genuine hardship, which are precisely the considerations Circular No.
17/2024 mandates the authority to examine. Rejecting the application
on the ground of maintainability alone, without examining the merits of
genuine hardship, is therefore an abdication of the authority’s
jurisdiction under the Circular.
16. Taking wholesome view of the matter, we are thus of the opinion
that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Circular No. 17/2024 for
the following cumulative reasons:-
16.1. all three substantive conditions of the Circular stand satisfied;
16.2. Form 10-IC was actually filed on 30.01.2023, which is within the
three-year window from the end of AY 2020-21;
16.3. the rejection on grounds of maintainability is legally unsustainable
since it conflates the date of filing of Form 10-IC with the date of the
formal condonation application;
and
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21098-DB] (10 of 10) [CW-4556/2026]
16.4. the option under Section 115BAA was unambiguously exercised
in the ITR itself, leaving no doubt as to the assessee’s intent.
17. Therefore, to deny the benefit in these circumstances would be to
allow a procedural technicality to defeat a substantive and clearly
established right, a result that is contrary to both the letter and spirit of
the CBDT Circulars and the settled canons of statutory interpretation.
18. As an upshot of the discussion above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 22.12. 2025 is set aside. The delay in filing
the declaration and Form 10-IC is condoned. The matter is remanded to
the competent authority for a fresh decision on its merits. It is made
clear that now the authority shall not consider the issue of delay or
limitation while deciding the matter.
19. All pending application(s) including stay petition stand disposed
of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
154-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 01:56:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 03:26:03 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
